10/16. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) announced, but did not release, a Report and Order regarding service rules
for spectrum to be used by millimeter wave technologies in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and
92-95 GHz bands. It only released a short
press
release [2 pages in PDF] describing the R&O, and brief statements of four of the five
Commissioners.

Possible Uses of These Spectrum Bands. The FCC release states that this
spectrum will be used to "promote the development of an additional
competitive broadband deployment platform". It adds that "These bands are
well-suited for licensees to offer a broad range of innovative products and
services, including high-speed, point-to-point wireless local area networks, and
broadband Internet access."

FCC Chairman
Michael Powell wrote a
separate
statement [PDF] that "Proponents of networks in theses bands say they
intend to use the spectrum to compete in the market for large volume
telecommunications users. Ultimately, however, the highly advanced technology
used here may encourage a broad range of new products and services, such as
high-speed wireless local area networks and broadband access systems for the
Internet."

FCC Commissioner Kevin
Martin wrote a
separate
statement [PDF] that "the private sector is experimenting with different
uses for these bands,
and this spectrum may ultimately be used commercially for high-speed wireless
local area networks, broadband access systems for the Internet, point-to-point
communications, and point-to-multipoint communications."

The Wireless Communications
Association International (WCAI) stated in a
release that "The rules will
trigger an unprecedented wave of innovation in millimeter wave technology, and
will pave the way for the development of new, efficient broadband service in a
variety of markets -- both private and government." See also, November 1, 2002
comment [39 pages in PDF] submitted by the WCAI to the FCC in response to
its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

Cisco Systems submitted a
comment [45
pages in PDF] on December 18, 2002 in which it argued that the 71-76 GHz and
81-86 GHz bands "are capable of extremely high
bandwidths previously attainable only with fiberoptic cable; they are much
faster, easier, and less expensive to install than fiber; and they provide a
more flexible network architecture than fiber. In addition, the propagation
characteristics of the band offer the possibility of practically limitless
frequency re-use."

Loea Communications Corporation submitted a
comment [68 pages in PDF] on December 18, 2002 in which it argued that "The
71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands will truly enable real ``first mile´´ (for
customers) or ``last mile´´ (for carriers) access to advanced broadband services
virtually anywhere in the United States - not just in major metropolitan areas
that have access to high speed wireline services. Because the 71-76 GHz and
81-86 GHz spectrum may be utilized without the tremendous resources necessary to
deploy fiber optic cable and other wired high-speed transmission facilities, its
is Loea's belief that this spectrum can play an important role in ensuring that
every American wishing for broadband services will be able to obtain such
services quickly and at reasonable costs."

Licensing Approach. The FCC release states that since the signals in these bands will have
"pencil-beam" characteristics, "systems can be engineered to operate in close
proximity to one another without causing interference." Hence, the FCC has
developed a new licensing approach. The FCC release states that "Traditional
frequency coordination between users will not be required. Instead, each path
will be registered in a database, and entitled to interference protection based
on the date of registration."

The FCC release elaborates that "The FCC
will issue an unlimited number of non-exclusive, nationwide licenses authorizing
non-Federal Government entities to use the entire 12.9 gigahertz of spectrum in
these three bands. Licensees will generally be provided interference protection
on a link-by-link basis, with the priority being set based on the date of link
registration. Initially, non-Federal Government links will be registered in the
FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS) database, subject to coordination with
Federal Government links under the existing coordination process involving the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). Within four months of the publication of this
Report and Order in the Federal Register, FCC
staff, in conjunction with NTIA, will release a Public Notice establishing the
implementation plan of a new, automated mechanism for coordination of
non-Federal Government links with Federal Government users."

FCC Commissioner
Jonathan Adelstein (at
right) wrote a
separate
statement [PDF] that "In layman's terms, we are making it easy for our
licensees to get access to spectrum for really fast connections -- gigabit
speeds."

He continued that "While I continue to support auctions to resolve cases of
mutual exclusivity for applicants seeking wide-area licenses (such as in the
Advanced Wireless Services item we also adopt today), the public interest is not
always served by adopting a licensing scheme that creates mutual exclusivity. We
already have held auctions for spectrum similar to 70/80/90 GHz, only to see
that spectrum lay relatively unused for years -- that outcome does not serve the
public interest." (Parentheses in original.)

"We had an opportunity here to break that mold, and I am glad we
did", said Adelstein. "It would be easier for all of us if we could do a
``one size fits all´´ approach, but we cannot. Simply
put, some bands, like 70/80/90 GHz, may be better suited for coordinated use;
some bands (like the AWS bands) are not. Just as some bands will require unique
interference criteria based on propagation characteristics, others may be
subject to frequent coordination with NTIA."

Unlicensed Use in the 92-95 GHz Band.
The FCC release states further that "The FCC is also permitting
unlicensed, indoor use of the 92.0-94.0 GHz and 94.1-95.0 GHz bands by
non-Federal Government users, to be governed by Part 15 of the FCC's rules and
based on existing regulations for the 57-64 GHz band. The FCC will not permit
unlicensed use of the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHZ bands at this time."

The WiFi Alliance submitted a
comment [4 pages in PDF] on December 18, 2002 in which it wrote that "at
the present time, the technology to utilize the 92-95
GHz band is limited, providing for future unlicensed needs is sound public
policy and it is clear that technology will continue to advance and eventually
spectrum will be necessary to accommodate widespread beneficial unlicensed uses
of millimeter wave bands."

More Information. The federal government is
currently using, and has plans to use, these three bands for a variety of
uses. Nevertheless, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) submitted a comment supporting sharing of these bands with
commercial users. Although, one reason for this support is to "reduce the
pressure on spectrum demand in the frequency bands below 3 GHz." See,
comment [19 pages in PDF] submitted on February 3, 2003.

See also, NTIA
report [29 pages in PDF] titled "Frequency Sharing Between the Fixed and
Radiolocation Services in the 92 to 95 GHz Band"; and December 18, 2002
comment [8 pages in PDF] submitted by the Boeing Corporation.

The FCC adopted its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 13, 2002, and
released the text of this NPRM on June 28, 2002. The NPRM is FCC 02-180. This Report
and Order is FCC 03-248, in WT Docket No. 02-146. For more information,
contact Jennifer Burton at 202-418-0680 or
Jennifer.Burton@fcc.gov.

FCC Announces Service Rules for
3G Spectrum

10/16. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) announced, but did not release, a Report and Order, containing service rules
for the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands. It only released a short
press
release [2 pages in PDF] describing the R&O, and brief statements of four
of the five Commissioners.

These spectrum bands have been allocated for advanced wireless services (AWS), which
is also known as Third Generation wireless services, or just 3G. These
services are intended to bring broadband internet access to portable and fixed
devices.

The FCC release states that "The rules adopted today include provisions for
application procedures, licensing, technical operations, and competitive
bidding. This spectrum will be licensed by geographic areas under the FCC's
flexible, market-oriented Part 27 rules, and will be assigned by competitive
bidding. In order to accommodate the needs of a variety of providers, including
large carriers as well as small and rural providers, the band plan for this
spectrum includes a mixture of license sizes and geographic areas."

FCC Chairman
Michael Powell wrote in a
separate
statement [PDF] that "Our service rules also reflect several key principles
for efficient use of spectrum as noted by the Commission's
Spectrum Policy Task Force,
including: maximizing the flexibility of licensees to choose the types and characteristics
of the services that they will offer in their licensed spectrum; grouping like spectrum
uses together so that technically compatible operations remain close to one another; and
defining spectrum users’ rights and responsibilities in the clearest manner possible."

FCC Commissioner Kevin
Martin wrote in a
separate
statement [PDF]
that "A crucial ingredient to these services, however, is sufficient spectrum.
This Order provides some of that spectrum, allowing a significant amount of
spectrum to be used for services such as expanded voice, data, and broadband
applications provided over high-speed fixed and mobile networks ..."

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps
wrote a separate
statement
[PDF] in which he dissented from part of the Report and Order. He wrote that "I
have serious concern with the Commission's decision to
move ahead without consolidation protections in the form of a spectrum
aggregation limit. Under the rules we adopt today, one company could apparently
end up controlling the entire AWS band in a city or a geographic region, leaving
no AWS spectrum for competitors. That’s a result I do not like."

Tom Wheeler, P/CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications
& Internet Association (CTIA) stated in a
release that
the "CTIA's recent Semi-Annual data survey shows that wireless minutes of use
continue to grow exponentially, while carriers continue to develop innovative and
compelling data services that will require an ever-increasing segment of the airwaves.
This additional spectrum, matched with the flexibility provided by these new service
rules, will help carriers meet America's future wireless demands in all their forms and
variations".

The FCC announced the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding on
November 7, 2002. See, story titled "FCC Adopts 3G Order and NRPM" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 546, November 11, 2003.

This Report and Order is FCC 03-251, in WT Docket No. 02-353.
For more information, contact Eli Johnson at 202-418-1395 or
Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov.

FCC Announces Order on Remand Regarding High
Cost Universal Service Support Mechanism

10/16. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) announced, but did not release, an Order on
Remand, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order
that revises the FCC's high cost universal service support mechanism. It only released a short
press
release [2 pages in PDF] describing the item, and brief statements of the five
Commissioners.

This item follows the July 31, 2001
opinion of
the U.S. Court of Appeals
(10thCir) in Qwest v. FCC, 258 F.3d 1191, which reversed and remanded the
FCC's Ninth Order "because it does not provide sufficient reasoning or record
evidence to support its reasonableness." See also, the FCC
web page titled "Tenth Circuit Remand".

The FCC release states that this item "Requires the states to compare rates
in their rural areas with a nationwide urban rate benchmark to determine whether such
rural and urban rates are reasonably comparable", "Concludes that a rate
review and expanded certification process will induce states to achieve reasonably
comparable rates", and "Reaffirms that comparing statewide average costs
to a nationwide cost benchmark appropriately determines high-cost support for non-rural
carriers."

The FCC release further states that this item "Defines the statutory terms
``sufficient´´ and ``reasonably
comparable´´ more precisely" and "Modifies the high-cost mechanism for non-rural
carriers by basing the cost benchmark -- which is used to determine the amount of support --
on two standard deviations above the national average cost per line."

This item also includes a further notice of proposed rulemaking
(FNPRM) that seeks comment on issues related to the rate
review and expanded certification process, as well as "whether additional targeted
federal support should be made available to states that implement explicit universal
service mechanisms to encourage states to adopt universal service mechanisms that will
be sustainable in a competitive environment".

The OIG memorandum states that "on October 14, 2001, six individuals (five of
whom were employed by telecommunications companies or associations; one of whom
was a partner at Wiley, Rein & Fielding, a
law firm specializing in wireless telecommunication law and Victory's old law
firm) hosted a party for Victory at her home, the cost of which was borne by the
hosts' respective employers. According to Victory, approximately 60 people
attended the event." (Parentheses in original.) The memorandum states that
the catering bill came to $2,925.

The OIG memorandum states that then, "on October 24, 2001, Victory filed a
letter
to the Federal
Communications Commission on behalf of the Administration in which she urged the
repeal of commercial mobile radio service spectrum aggregation limits (the
spectrum ``cap´´)." (Parentheses in original.)

Subsequently, on November 8, 2001, the FCC announced that it had adopted a Report
and Order that would sunset the Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) spectrum cap
rule by eliminating it effective January 1, 2003, raise the cap immediately to 55 MHz
in all markets until the sunset date, and immediately eliminate the cellular
cross-interest rule in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), but retain the
rule in Rural Service Areas (RSAs). See FCC
release.

This Report and Order is FCC 01-328 in WT Docket No. 01-14. See also, story
titled "FCC to Phase Out CMRS Spectrum Cap" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 305, November 9, 2001.

The OIG memorandum states that "Victory denied that the funding of the party by
individuals and organizations involved in the telecommunications industry
influenced her conduct of her duties or her policymaking decisions as Assistant
Secretary for Telecommunications and Information. Victory specifically denied
that the funding of the party influenced her position on the issue of wireless
spectrum caps."

It also states that the people who paid for the party "denied participating in
the party with the intent of influencing Victory's official conduct".

The OIG memorandum concludes that "Victory's acceptance of the party violated
5 C.F.R. §2635.101(b)(4), which
prohibits employees from accepting gifts from any person or entity whose
interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of
the employee's duties. Victory's acceptance of the gift also violated 5 C.F.R.
§2635.202(a), which, among other things, prohibits employees from accepting a
gift from a prohibited source."

It also concludes that "By accepting such a gift, Victory also violated
5 C.F.R. §2635.101(b)(14),
which requires employees to endeavor to avoid any actions which create the
appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards contained in
the Standards of Ethical Conduct of Employees of the Executive Branch."

Finally, the OIG memorandum, which was directed to the Deputy Secretary of
Commerce, Samuel Bodman, states that "Based on the evidence disclosed in our
investigation, we recommend that you
take appropriate administrative action against Victory for violation of 5 C.F.R.
§§2635.101(b)(4), 2635.101(b)(14) and 2635.202(a)."

The OIG memorandum is dated June 25, 2003. It also identified a 60 comment
period for the Deputy Secretary.

Before her appointment as head of the NTIA, Victory was a partner in the law
firm of Wiley Rein & Feilding (WRF). Her husband,
Michael Senkowski,
is a partner at WRF, Chairman of WRF's Telecommunications and Internet &
E-Commerce Practices, and Chairman of WRF's Business Development Committee.

On October 14, President
Bush formally nominated Michael Gallagher (at right) to be head
of the NTIA. He was named acting Assistant Secretary in August. See, White House
release.

Gallagher was previously Deputy Chief of Staff at the DOC. Before that, he was
Deputy Assistant Secretary for the NTIA. He has also worked for AirTouch Communications,
former Rep. Rick White (R-WA) (who is now CEO of
TechNet), and the law firm of
Perkins Coie.

Alex Roytblat, Assistant Chief of the Strategic Analysis and Negotiations
Division of the FCC's International Bureau,
will direct the Commission's WRC-07 preparatory activities and be the Designated
Federal Official to the Advisory Committee. Roytblat also directed the FCC's
preparatory activities for the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference.

Glassman
(at right) stated that "As the national market system was being developed, when
technology was still in the Dark Ages, trade-through rules played an important structural
role in ensuring compliance with best execution obligations. But I'm not convinced that
the current rules are effective in today's environment, where direct electronic access
is the norm among traders in the Nasdaq market and is getting a toehold in the listed
market."

She continued that "The technology now exists for customers to get the information
they need to ensure that they are getting best execution. Best execution means different
things to different customers -- whether price, speed, cost or liquidity. I
believe that there are strong arguments for modifying -- or even eliminating --
the trade-through rule. First, it would remove barriers for customers for whom
best execution means something other than the best price. Second, it would focus
attention on the broker's best execution analysis. It is the broker who is in
the best position to know what his customer means by best execution."

She concluded that "the questions are: Who are the trade-through rules really
protecting? Do they in fact protect limit orders in the penny environment? Or
are we entrenching slow markets?"

Sen. Warner Advocates Public Private
Nanotechnology Efforts

10/17. Sen. John Warner (R-VA), the
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, spoke in the Senate regarding nanotechnology.
He stated that "Of all the areas of scientific innovation being developed
today, none is more profound than nanotechnology."

He elaborated that "In the area of national security, nanotechnology has been
identified as one of the most important strategic research areas. Revolutionary
applications could include: very lightweight but extremely strong armor, vastly smaller
and more powerful computers, microscopic sensor systems, and tiny unmanned vehicles.
These could provide vastly increased capabilities for our armed forces. Conversely, to
fall behind in these new areas will present us with a critical security risk."

"Unfortunately, the United States is no longer the only world leader in many
areas of nanoscience, as many countries have recognized its importance and are
greatly increasing their funding. With stakes this high, we must pay close
attention to the choices we make", said Warner.

He concluded that "I understand the stakes and stand four-square behind
public-private efforts to keep America in the lead in nanotechnology." See,
Congressional Record, October 17, 2003, at pages S12832-3.

Senate to Take Up Class Action Reform
Bill

10/17. The Senate will begin consideration of S 1751 on Monday, October 20,
at 2:00 PM. Sen. Charles Grassley
(R-IA), Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) and others
introduced the bill on October 16. An earlier version of this bill,
S 274,
titled the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003", was introduced on February 4,
2003. It was approved by the Senate
Judiciary Committee on July 31, 2003.

President Bush has also been advocating passage of this legislation in some
of his political speeches in the United States. See, story titled "Bush Praises
Class Action Reform Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 757, October 14, 2003.

Senators Debate Internet Taxes

10/15. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY),
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and others
introduced S 1736,
titled the "Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act", a bill to authorize state and
local taxing entities to collect taxes from out of state remote sellers, including
internet retailers. Sen. Enzi and Sen. Dorgan also spoke in support of this bill
in the Senate. Also on October 15, Sen. Ron
Wyden (D-OR) went to the Senate floor to warn that a version of the Internet
Tax Nondiscrimination Act (INDA) being advanced by state and local governments would
give state and local governments "explicit permission to tax what Internet users
do once they get on line", including sending e-mail.

Sen. Enzi stated that "Our bill will also help states begin to recover from
years of budgetary shortfalls." He also asserted that "This bill is not a
disguised attempt to increase taxes or put a new tax on the Internet."

Sen.
Dorgan (at left) stated in the Senate that "Collecting a sales tax in a
face-to-face transaction on Main Street or at the mall is a relatively simple
process. The seller collects the tax and remits it to the State or local
government. But with remote sales -- such as catalog and Internet sales -- it's more
difficult. States cannot require a seller to collect a sales tax unless the
business has an actual location or sales people in the State. So most States,
and many localities, have laws that require the local buyer to send an
equivalent ``use tax´´ to the State or local government when he or she did not
pay taxes at the time of purchase. The reality, of course, is that customers
almost never do that. It would be a major inconvenience, and people are not
accustomed to paying sales taxes in that way."

"Internet and catalog sellers correctly argue that collecting and remitting
sales taxes would be a significant burden. Understandably, they contend that,
unless things change, it would be difficult for them to have to comply with tax
laws from thousands of different jurisdictions -- 46 States and thousands of
local governments -- with different tax rates and all of the idiosyncrasies
regarding what is taxable and what is non-taxable. This is a legitimate
complaint", said Sen. Dorgan.

But, he continued, many states have approved the "Streamlined Sales and Use
Tax Agreement'', to "dramatically simplify and streamline how State sales taxes
are identified and collected. And, by harmonizing State sales tax rules,
bringing uniformity to definitions of items in the sales tax base, significantly
reducing the paperwork burden on retailers, and incorporating a seamless
electronic reporting process the agreement will significantly reduce the burden
of collection on all sellers."

The bill provides that once the state compact is adopted by 10 States with at
least 20 percent of the population, those states would then have the authority
to collect sales or use taxes from out of state sellers.

States cannot do this now without federal legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in Quill
v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), that state and local taxing
authorities are barred under the Commerce Clause from requiring remote sellers
without a substantial nexus to the taxing jurisdiction to collect sales taxes
for sales to persons within the jurisdiction. However, the Court added that
Congress may extend such authority. S 1736 and HR 3184 would extend such
authority.

If a state decides to collect taxes from out of state residents, the
legislators in this state would be taxing people who cannot vote in their next
election. Hence, this method of raising revenue is popular with state and local
governments. However, federal legislative proposals to authorize such tax
schemes have heretofore failed to pass. By voting for such legislation, Senators
and Representatives would be enabling the collection of taxes from their voters.

For example, on November 15, 2001, when the Senate extended the moratorium
first enacted in the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Senate also rejected, on a
roll call vote of 57-43, an amendment offered by Sen. Enzi and Sen. Dorgan, that
would have allowed state and local taxing authorities to require out of
jurisdiction sellers to pay taxes.

Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. Supporters of legislation such as
S 1736 have often tried to tie this issue
to the internet tax moratorium issue. The original Internet Tax Freedom Act,
which was passed as part of a larger omnibus bill in late 1998, contained a
three year moratorium. It expired on October 20, 2000. The 107th Congress passed
HR 1552, also
titled the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which extended the moratorium
until November 1, 2003. In January, bills were introduced in the House and
Senate to make permanent this moratorium. All of these bills have been sponsored
by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and
Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA).

The House passed its version of the latest bill,
HR 49,
titled the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act", or INDA, on September 17, 2003.

The Senate has yet to pass its version of the bill,
S 52, also
titled the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act". These bills would make
permanent the current moratorium on internet access taxes, and multiple and discriminatory
taxes on internet commerce. They would amend Section 1101 of the Internet Tax
Freedom Act, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. 151 note.

Also on October 15, Sen. Wyden went to the Senate floor to criticize a
proposed version of the INDA. He said that "I had been under the impression that
we were just about ready to bring this
bill to the floor, but in the last few days a proposal that I find truly
alarming has been brought forward by some of the State and local officials. I
come to the floor this morning to make sure the Senate is actually familiar with
the language that is being brought forward."

Sen.
Wyden (at right) had inserted into the Congressional Record a copy of the
proposal. See, Congressional Record, October 15, 2003, at pages Pages
S12567-9.

He continued that "what some State and local officials now seek to do is to change
the definition of ``Internet access,´´ which, under current law, cannot be taxed. In
doing so, what it would do is give States and localities explicit permission to
tax what Internet users do once they get on line. That would mean you could have
games, music, magazines, newspapers, information services, financial services,
research services, or other products of services, in effect, facing a barrage of
new taxes."

Sen. Wyden warned that under this proposed language "Consumers could be
taxed every time they check a bank statement online. They
could be taxed for paying their bills online. They could be taxed each time they
check the sports scores online or listen to the weather on streaming radio.
Every time a consumer turns to Google research service, they could be taxed for
each key stroke."

"But by redefining the definition of Internet access, as the proposal does
that I have put into the Congressional Record today, in effect you give a
green light to State and local authorities all across the country to tax services
that are integral to Internet access, including e-mail", Sen. Wyden concluded.

Monday, October 20

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour and
at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider several non tech related
items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM.
See, Republican Whip
notice.

The Senate will meet at 1:30 PM for morning business,
and at 2:00 PM to consider
S 1751,
the "Class Action Fairness Act".

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Department of Commerce's
(DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
titled "16th Annual Update Conference on Export Controls and Policy".
Kenneth Juster, Under
Secretary for BIS, will speak at 8:30 AM. See,
notice
and
agenda. The price to attend ranges from $625 to $700. Location: Renaissance
Hotel, 999 9th Street, NW.

Day two of a three day conference titled "Networked Economy Summit". See,
event web site and
agenda. Press information:
the summit is open to all media -- print, radio, Internet and TV. For day-of coverage
at the event, please sign up at
www.publicforuminstitute.org or call Mark Marich at the Public Forum Institute
at 202 467-2776. Location: Hyatt Regency Reston, Reston, VA.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the Department of Commerce's
(DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
titled "16th Annual Update Conference on Export Controls and Policy".
See,
notice and
agenda.
The price to attend ranges from $625 to $700. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999
9th Street, NW.

Day three of a three day conference titled "Networked Economy Summit".
See, event web
site and
agenda. Press information: the summit is open to all media -- print, radio, Internet
and TV. For day-of coverage
at the event, please sign up at
www.publicforuminstitute.org or call Mark Marich at Public Forum Institute
at 202 467-2776. Location: Hyatt Regency Reston, Reston, VA.

TIME?
Joseph Liu (Boston College of Law) will give a lecture titled "Rationalizing
Trademark Defenses". This is a part of
Georgetown University Law Center's
(GULC) Colloquium
on Intellectual Property & Technology Law Series. For more information,
contact
Julie Cohen at 202 662-9871. Location: GULC,
600 New Jersey Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to its rules governing the provision of air
ground telecommunications services on commercial airplanes in order to enhance
the options available to the public. The FCC adopted this NPRM on April 17,
2003, and released it on April 28, 2003. This is WT Docket No. 03-103. See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 143, at Pages
44003 - 44011.

Deadline to submit requests to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) to speak at its October 23, 2003 hearing regarding
its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding computation and allocation
of the credit for increasing research activities for members of a controlled
group of corporations or a group of trades or businesses under common control.
The rules implement the research and development tax credit codified at
26 U.S.C. § 41.
See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 145, at Pages
44499 - 44506.

Deadline for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding
telecommunication relay services (TRS) and speech-to-speech services for
individuals with hearing and speech disabilities. This is CG Docket No.
03-123. See,
notice
in the Federal Register, August 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 164, at Pages 50993 -
50998.

People and Appointments

10/17. On Wednesday, October 15, the Senate
Banking Committee approved the nominations of Harvey Rosen and Kristin Forbes
to be members of the Council of Economic Advisers. Then, on Friday, October 17,
the full Senate approved the nominations by voice vote.

10/17. On Wednesday, October 15, the Senate
Banking Committee approved the nominations of Julie Myers and
Peter Lichtenbaum to be Assistant Secretaries of Commerce for Export
Enforcement. Then on Friday, October 17, the full Senate approved the
nominations by voice vote.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.